Category Archives: Atheism

The National University of Singapore has issued a statement to inform the public that the NUS Atheist Society Facebook page is not affiliated with the tertiary institution.

The statement by NUS was posted on March 20, after law and home affairs minister K Shanmugam slammed a post by the page that was deemed offensive to Muslims and Christians in Singapore:

The police are investigating the case.

NUS said in its statement it had on two occasions requested Facebook to look into the legitimacy of the account.

Facebook looked into the request, NUS added, but the social media giant had apparently responded that people are unlikely to be confused about the source, sponsorship or affiliation of NUS Atheist Society.

NUS said it will continue to press Facebook to drop all references to NUS.

This is NUSs statement in full:

NUS had reported the NUS Atheist Society Facebook page to Facebook last year and again on 19 March 2020. On both occasions, we requested that Facebook look into the legitimacy of the account.

Facebook has responded to say that the content on the reported site does not appear likely to confuse people as to source, sponsorship or affiliation, and they are unable to act on our report at this time.

We wish to clarify that NUS has no relationship with the NUS Atheist Society and the Facebook page is not affiliated to the University. The contents posted by the NUS Atheist Society do not represent the views, opinions and position of the University. We will continue pressing Facebook to get the group to drop all references to NUS.

In a unexpected development, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) announced on March 21 that it would be suspending the membership of one of its members, Jan Chan, with immediate effect.

PSP added that it is not linked to the NUS Atheist Society, and that it will work to ensure that all its members keep within the boundaries of the law.

PSP also said internal investigations are being conducted for actions made in Chans personal capacity.

The NUS Atheist Society Facebook page is still active as of March 21.

As per Facebooks notification to the NUS Atheist Society, the visibility of the post that featured the holy books of Muslims and Christians has been curtailed.

In a post Saturday afternoon post, the NUS Atheist Society page offered an apology of sorts:

The post said:

It was never my intent to suggest or encourage using two holy books as toilet paper. To that effect, the use of the holy books was intentionally left unspecified and to the interpretation of the audiences imagination. The news media, however, picked up one version of the story and thus, we are where we are.

My intent had been to demonstrate that a purposely vague statement, left to interpretation, could be and would be interpreted in the worst possible way. And, in seeing that the audience of this page are mainly either non-religious or familiar with this style of provocative humour, I had not considered that the post would reach the wider public.

If I had caused personal distress and emotional distress, I sincerely apologise and I am truly sorry. If however, the post had merely elicited outrage, then I would like to kindly request not to instinctively lodge a report to the police or higher authorities to demand satisfaction. Leave a comment and start that the civil conversation in society about questioning religion that atheism has for so long called for, but has thus far been ignored.

It had prior to this apology posted other pieces of content:

Continue reading here:
NUS says NUS Atheist Society Facebook page not affiliated with university - Mothership.sg

Alex Moreland interviews William Shaw about Doctor Who, his new book about The Rings of Akhaten, and more

I recently sat down with William Shaw a writer and blogger originally from Sheffield, now based in London, whose work has appeared in Star*Line, Space & Time, The Martian Wave, The Oxford Culture Review, and Doctor Who Magazine to discuss his upcoming book about The Rings of Akhaten. Its the latest in the Black Archive series published by Obverse Books; each book takes an in-depth look at a different episode of Doctor Who.

What follows is a wide-ranging discussion, getting to grips with Williams love for the controversial Series 7 episode, how it engages with and critiques both New Atheism and imperialism, and what its like to write a book about Doctor Who.

So, lets start with the obvious question. Why The Rings of Akhaten? What do you like about it?

I think its one of the boldest, most ambitious, and most radical episodes in all of Doctor Who. Its a heartfelt story, lushly realised and beautifully performed. Its a vital early step in the journey of Clara Oswald, the best companion (and arguably the best Doctor) the show has ever had. Its an early commentary on the shows fiftieth anniversary. And, as I talk about in the book, its a fascinating engagement with contemporary politics. I basically think its a critique of New Atheism (cf Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc) and its relationship to Doctor Who, but in doing that it necessarily touches on the legacy of colonialism, and Clara and Merrys relationship in the story is an interesting way into some topics from feminist theory. Like Claras leaf, it looks simple, but it contains multitudes.

Youve written forty thousand words about The Rings of Akhaten. Can you tell us a little about the different ideas/analysis youve touched on? Is there anything that might particularly surprise people? Or indeed that surprised you?

My starting point, as I say, was New Atheism, and talking about that necessarily meant bringing in some postcolonial theory, particularly Edward Said. Its remarkable how unimpressive the arguments of, say, Sam Harris really are when you realise Said was already on top of them in 1978. I also brought in some feminist theory, and Chandra Talpade Mohantys book Feminism Without Borders was really helpful in structuring the second chapter.

Of course, theres been plenty of good academic work about Doctor Who, and I was very impressed by Lindy Orthias work, although I didnt quote much of it directly. Matt Hills writing about the media event of Doctor Whos fiftieth anniversary was really useful, especially in chapter four where I talk about how The Rings of Akhaten ties in with that anniversary. Then of course theres the other Black Archives; Kate Ormans on Pyramids of Mars and Alyssa Frankes on Hell Bent were my favourites, and provided good models for what I wanted to do.

The most pleasant surprise in researching the book was when I was reading the contemporary reviews, and found out that Charlie Jane Anders had written about the episode. Shes one of my favourite authors working at the moment, so it was really nice to get her perspective.

Do you need to have an academic background at all to understand some of the ideas in the book?

I hope not! Having just name-dropped all that academic theory, I always aimed this book at the general reader (alright, maybe someone with more Doctor Who knowledge than the general reader, but still). I hope the book can be some peoples way into that academic theory; I think Doctor Who fandom would be in a much better place if more people had read Orientalism, for example. But you dont need to have studied this stuff to follow the book. I took care to explain academic concepts whenever I introduced them, and I dont think theres anything in the bibliography beyond a first-year undergrad level. My main editor, Philip Purser-Hallard, was very good at pointing out when I needed to explain things further or correct mistakes.

So, for those who are unfamiliar, could you explain what New Atheism and Orientalism actually are? How are they relevant to Doctor Who?

New Atheism is quite a broad phenomenon, but basically it refers to an uptick in popular atheist writing and political activity in Europe and America in the mid-to-late 2000s. Being the mid-to-late 2000s, it bears a clear relationship to the War on Terror, and the reactionary Islamophobia of that time (and this one). The most famous New Atheists are the Four Horsemen: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. In the book I mostly concentrate on their writing, but the movement was large, and Very Online, so its influence can still be felt today, especially on social media and sites like YouTube.

Orientalism is a concept originally created by the literary theorist Edward Said, in his 1978 book Orientalism, and its foundational to postcolonial theory. Very basically, it refers to the intellectual paradigm by which western imperial powers have historically understood the East, or the Orient, with little or no reference to those regions actual histories and cultures. The Orient is simultaneously ancient and childlike, in need of protection and care from enlightened, mature westerners. Which is terribly convenient if you happen to be a colonial power. I highly recommend people read Orientalism, and the follow-up, Culture and Imperialism; theyre very rich but also very readable.

These two things interact with each other, of course; theres quite a bit of Orientalist thinking in New Atheism, and Said was actually friends with Christopher Hitchens at one point. But they both also interact with Doctor Who. The New Atheist movement was roughly contemporary with Russell T Davies revival of the show; Davies has said he took Bad Wolf from Dawkins idea of the meme. Pretty much any time religion comes up in the Davies era, theres a clear New Atheist influence. Orientalism goes back even further; the whole show comes out of the Victorian tradition of adventure fiction, which is just soaked in the attitudes Said describes. How many times has the Doctor visited an alien world with an ancient, mystical past populated by ignorant, squabbling aliens? How many times has he stepped in as an enlightened outsider to fix another peoples culture? Its not fair to single out Doctor Who in this, really, because its just endemic to so much science fiction.

I understand that the first time you watched the episode, it left you a little cold what was it that clicked for you the second time around?

Thats right, and this is something I talk about in the book. The key was making that connection with New Atheism. I remember watching it on broadcast and just going Yeah, that was OK, but a few years later I happened to listen to a podcast criticising the history of New Atheism around the time Series 7 was being repeated (or was showing up on iPlayer, anyway). It was like fitting together pieces of a jigsaw. Realising that the Doctor wasnt necessarily in the right, that the episode was about him making a crucial mistake, was what really cracked it for me; it became a whole new episode. Which is the story of that whole series, really.

The Rings of Akhaten is a little controversial, as an episode of Doctor Who. What would you say to the people who arent so fond?

Give it a watch with fresh eyes. Once you have the context of the rest of the series, and especially of Claras development through the Capaldi era, its much easier to see what the episode is going for, and largely succeeding at. Id also say, keep an open mind to the setting; one of my favourite things about Doctor Who is that it can show us such strange and captivating worlds, things like The Web Planet or The End of the World. If you can groove on that sense of exploration, and are willing to be surprised, I think the quality of the film-making really shines through.

Its also situated in a run of episodes which are themselves looked on a little less than fondly theres a school of thought that says Series 7 is the weakest of the Steven Moffat era. Youre an ardent defender of that series what is it you like about them?

Series 7 is my favourite of the Matt Smith era. There are lots of reasons for this, but foremost is the sheer quality of the individual stories. It has a rich variety of settings and styles, and a fantastic sense of forward momentum; it has the best series opener/companion introduction of the entire Moffat era in The Bells of St John, it has some of the best episodes Chris Chibnall and Mark Gatiss ever wrote, and its topped off by the two best specials Doctor Who has ever done. Its also, I think, the best Doctor Who has ever looked; Saul Metzstein, Nick Hurran, Colm McCarthy, Farren Blackburn, and Jamie Payne are among the shows best directors, and the cinematography is consistently beautiful.

Its also a fascinating celebration of the shows fiftieth anniversary. Its joyful and triumphant, yes, but theres real thought, and at times a slight anxiety, about the show and its history. Its a celebration, but its not uncritical. Theres a sense of hooray, we made it fifty years! But how can we keep moving forward? And its answer to that question is The Capaldi/Coleman era, which, as answers go, is pretty great. Its this fascinating bridge between the two halves of the Moffat era, past and present and future all jumbled together, like some sort of hybrid or something.

Do you think The Rings of Akhaten, and Series 7 more broadly, are due a critical reappraisal soon?

Absolutely. If theres one thing I want to achieve with this book (other than, hopefully, being interesting to read), its to try and shift fandoms view of this episode. There are plenty of fans who love the episode, of course, and thats great, but I think if fandom in general can see even part of what I see in it, then my work is done.

As for series 7, I think it is due a reappraisal pretty soon. Now that the Chibnall era is in full swing, now Moffat and Smith arent such an active concern, and the buzz of media hype and fan discussions has died down a bit, I think theres space for people to go back to that series with the benefit of hindsight.

Lets talk about actually writing the book. Where did that begin for you? What was the process like?

I have a few friends from university who are Doctor Who fans, and we occasionally meet up to have lunch and watch old episodes together. We were having a gathering in October 2017, and I thought this might be an opportunity to road-test my opinions on Akhaten. They very kindly agreed to watch The Rings of Akhaten and let me give a half-hour lecture, so I wrote about 6,000 words and delivered them there. The reception was really great, and my friends gave me lots of helpful feedback; theyre all included in the books acknowledgements. I took this initial lecture and their feedback, and refined that into my pitch to Obverse Books, which they very kindly accepted at the start of 2018. After that, as you can imagine, I was off to the races.

Excitingly, youve got an exclusive interview with Farren Blackburn, the director of the episode. How did you go about setting that up? Can you tell us anything about what Farren told you?

The credit for that goes to one of my editors, Paul Simpson. He edits Sci-Fi Bulletin, and they interviewed Farren Blackburn about The Innocents around the time I was writing the first draft. So Paul put us in touch, and Farren very kindly agreed to an interview. I dont want to spoil too much, but he gave some really nice insights, particularly around his direction of actors. Its an underappreciated aspect of directing, I think, especially on Doctor Who, but he got a great set of performances out of his cast, and it was fascinating to hear some of the thought process behind that. He also very kindly gave me permission to publish a behind-the-scenes document he wrote early in production. I remember grinning when I first read it, his enthusiasm just jumps off the page. Farren has been very generous with his time, and very patient with this strange fanboy talking incessantly about the episode he worked on seven years ago. Im very grateful to him for that.

Check back this Saturday for the second part of our interview with William, as we ask him what he thinks Neil Cross mightve been like as Doctor Who showrunner, what he thinks of depictions of faith in the Jodie Whittaker era, and more!

William Shaws Black Archive on The Rings of Akhaten is available now. You can find William online here, or on Twitter @Will_S_7.

Photo Credit: Lweendo Emmanuel Ndawana

Alex Morelandis a freelance writer and television critic; you canfollow him on Twitter here, orcheck out his website here.

See the rest here:
Exclusive Interview William Shaw on Doctor Who, his new book about The Rings of Akhaten, and more (Part One) - Flickering Myth

The joke going around in virus land is that there are no libertarians in a pandemic, just as there are no atheists in foxholes. For some people this is, no doubt, a joke with a double meaning. Even if atheists may be less willing to climb into foxholes than Presbyterians or Yazidis in the first place, the study of soldier experiences and war literature suggests that combat is pretty darn good at sowing materialism and encouraging questioning of revealed wisdom.

Yes, there are atheists in foxholes, dummy, even if they didnt bring atheism with them; and even if a pandemic teaches lessons in the usefulness of capable, powerful government, it perhaps has just as many about the harmfulness and stupidity of government as it generally exists in the real world.

The United States, to take one infuriating example, is about to have an awful lot of unnecessary deaths because, through ill-considered peacetime regulation, it allowed its national disease-surveillance agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to acquire what was tantamount to a manufacturing monopoly on DNA testing of virus samples. It wasnt a competent monopoly, either, as things turned out. We are still seeing American news items about academic and private laboratories the kinds of places that developed DNA sequencing in the first place, and which were its exclusive domain until recently that hope to help increase testing capacity, but must wait for permission from the federal paterfamilias.

The United States is about to have an awful lot of unnecessary deaths

Meanwhile, the evidence from countries that have already had proper battles with novel coronavirus, as opposed to our preliminary skirmishes, mostly seems to carry the message For the love of God, test as much as you can. So good luck to the Americans, and also (gulp) to us: it is starting to appear as though one of the tightest bottlenecks in scaling up lab testing might be fraction-of-a-cent nasopharyngeal swabs, rather than sequencing appliances or virus samples.

Anyway, thats a digression, one that I cant resist because the narrative of central government failure suits my taste. But some of you will be asking why beautiful free markets havent provided us with more of those swabs. Still, its not quite just to say that every libertarian turns into a cringing supplicant of the state in a pandemic. Yes, right now a lot of Canadians are relieved that a state with the power to lock up businesses, arenas and churches in the name of public safety also has the power to send cheques from the future to the people who have lost their jobs.

I approve of all this too, since I am lucky enough to have a career that benefits a little from crisis and chaos. We need to help those people whose work is actual work, and who cannot do that work because an act of God requires exceptional remedies. But it is fairly easy to see how the crisis could be exploited to injure civil liberties permanently, as opposed to just re-habituating us to welfare, which some politicians are unabashedly keen on. Anyone who lived through 9/11 already knows this in his bones.

Medical privacy is already something we relax when it comes to the reporting of infectious disease. You will hear the argument that we make a fetish of it that clinical research would be so much easier without it, as it is when human research subjects voluntarily surrender it. There will also be pundits and experts along soon to say how convenient it would be if cellphone tracking data, which would be real handy for cops and working epidemiologists doing disease surveillance, were available a little more freely.

And as our time in social lockdown creeps along, you and I will I promise! grow less patient with those who defy it brazenly, or those who are otherwise irresponsible about social distancing. Isnt due process of law an awful lot of trouble? The police have batons and sidearms, dont they?

Medical privacy is already something we relax when it comes to the reporting of infectious disease

The realistic libertarian understands the distinction probably not invented by Murray Rothbard, but that is where I personally got it from between society and the state, between social action and government powers based on retaliatory violence. A mess like this demonstrates the difference to all of us. Why does liberal democracy function reasonably well, when enlightened despotism (bound by strong rules about individual rights, or not) is always an alternative?

One reason is that, in emergencies, the state can take extraordinary steps with some show of consent or pre-existing licence from society (which itself does most of the heavy lifting, and even most of the enforcement). When society is chronically at odds with the state, even for good historical reasons, you end up with Italy a wonderful place to be most of the time, but not right now.

I may not have voted for Jason Kenney or Justin Trudeau, but we did, and an epidemic is a situation in which the necessity for us to work in concert is overwhelming. We have an extraordinary selfish incentive to obey, however hateful and nauseous the word obedience may be to us. Democracy is a transparent fiction which rises unbidden to vivid realness at such a time, as it would if we were confronted with a visible invader.

See the article here:
Colby Cosh: As disgusting as it sounds, obedience is a virtue with coronavirus - National Post

Ive had the pleasure of connecting with tons of secular parents here on the intertubes since starting the Godless Mom blog. Ihear lots of stories some are sad, some are triumphant, some just gutting. There are a few things I hear though, that just strike me as strange. These thingsfeel counterproductive to me and could have the opposite effect you are hoping them to.

Heres a handful of the most frequent actions taken by atheist parents who contact me, that in my mind are complete no-nos:

1. Dont refuse to attend family functions in religious buildings.If youve been invited to a family wedding at a church, or a Bar Mitzvah at a synagogue just go. Refusal to do so, based solely on the grounds that you are an atheist, is petty. By refusing to go, youre assigning power tothe religious venue and dont think for two seconds your kids wont pick up on this. If you want your children to see a church or a synagogueas just another building like any other, then dont give it the power to keep you out.

2. Dont shield your children from religion or religious people. If there are religious people in your childs life, be okay with them talking to your children about their religion. Just insist that you are either present or told what has been said. Youre never going to be able to stop them from being exposed to religion completely, so you might as well be in control of it. As well, many atheists will attest, the more you know about religion, the less likely you are to believe it.

3. Donttell your kids what to think about religion. Instead, tell them what you believe and what others believe and ask them what they think of it. Prompt their little minds to think critically by asking things like, Does that make sense to you? Why or why not? Putting them in a position to have to explain their thought process will trigger critical thought like nothing else.

4. Dont push your kids into learning about religion. Let them guide you. If and when they show interest or ask, Mommy, what is God?, thats when you begin to explore the topic together. If your child appears to lose interest, then let it go. Forcing your kids to hear about religion is only going to make the topic stand out to them. It gives it a power that other topics simply do not have.Youre saying to them, in not so many words, that religion holds no power over you, but they are seeing the opposite. When you cant drop the subject or let it go, it clearly does have power over you. Kids tend to see the examples you set far sooner than they hear the words you are saying.

5. Dont neglect other topics. I know this sounds like a no-brainer, but I have had a few parents email me telling me that they try and try to explain religion to their kids and it sounds almost as though thats all they talk about with them. Forcing your children to be lectured about things they have no interest in will only cause resentment and sometimes even rebellion against the very sentiments you are trying to teach. Just relaxteaching your kids about a large variety of things will help keep their curiosity sparked and that is all thats needed to grow into adults who value critical thought.

7.Dont take away religious holidays they might be used to. If all of their friends celebrate Christmas, and they look forward to it and it makes them happy, then why would you deprive them of that? This will cause resentment and also applies power to the religious aspect of the holiday: it has the power to stop you from celebrating it.

Being an atheist does not come with a dogma. We are not, in absence of belief in God, now forced to reject everything associated with a God claim. This is unreasonable and implies that atheism prescribes a certain way of life. We all know it doesnt. Dont let your disbelief rule your world, because your children will see that. They will take note and it could work in the exact opposite way you meant it to. You could endup with your very own Ken Ham living in your basement at 43 collecting pop cans to pay for his model of the ark.

Just relax. As an atheist, religion should not be a serious thing one way or the other. Dont let it have power. Celebrate your kids natural curiosity, be honest with them and I think youll find that they grow into critical thinking, rational adults.

Im writing a book addressing the many reasons believers distrust atheists. Im around 40,000 words in! If you want to help me get it done, you can support me by donatinghereor becoming a patronhere.

Image: Creative Commons/Pixabay

The rest is here:
7 Atheist Parenting Don'ts | Courtney Heard - Patheos

Sen. Bernie Sanders rallies with supporters in St. Paul, Minn., March 2, 2020.(Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)And his own religious faith is indistinguishable from belief in socialism.

Once upon a time, Bernie Sanders would have had another political vulnerability besides his socialism namely, his atheism.

In 2016, a DNC staffer had to apologize after the WikiLeaks hack exposed an email he wrote that suggested using Bernies atheism against him in the primary.

This year, Bernies religion or lack of it has barely made a ripple or even occasioned any comment. It used to be expected that serious presidential candidates would have religious faith and discuss it, in keeping with the religious coloration of the country they sought to govern. Just as the taboo against openly socialist candidates has given way, so has the old norm about religiosity eroded nearly to the vanishing point.

Sanders, a secular Jew, doesnt call himself an atheist. The way he puts it is that hes not actively involved in organized religion, and that he believes in God, just not in a traditional matter. To me, he has said of his religion, it means that all of us are connected, all of life is connected, and that we are all tied together.

Asked by Jimmy Kimmel whether he believes in God, he said, I am what I am. And what I believe in, and what my spirituality is about, is that were all in this together.

Functionally, this means his religion is indistinguishable from the vision of solidarity undergirding his socialist politics.

Indeed, the connection to Israel that Sanders touts to prove that he is not anti-Israel had much more to do with a political commitment rather than a religious one.

He lived for a time on a kibbutz in 1963 as a guest of a secular, socialist youth movement. According to the New York Times, the kibbutz saw the Soviet Union as a model, and often flew the red flag at outdoor events. Sanders told a publication called Jewish Currents that it was there that I saw and experienced for myself many of the progressive values upon which Israel was founded.

His brother said of Bernie in a 2016 Washington Post interview that he is quite substantially not religious.

This makes Sanders an outlier in American life, but less of one than he used to be. According to the Pew Research Center, 26 percent of Americans says that they are atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular, up from 17 percent in 2009. The growth of the religiously unaffiliated can be seen across all demographic groups and regions but is especially pronounced among young people who are, of course, disproportionately Bernie supporters. Only 35 percent of Millennials attend religious services weekly or once or twice a month, while 64 percent attend a few times a year, seldom, or never.

The non-religious are Bernies base. A Pew survey in January found that Joe Bidens most supportive religious group was black Protestants, at 44 percent, followed by white Catholics and white evangelicals, at 37 percent each. Bernies best groups were agnostics (36 percent), atheists (30), and the unaffiliated (28).

In New Hampshire, Sanders lost to Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg among voters who attend religious services once a week or more and won among voters who never attend. A rare bright spot for Bernie in South Carolina was beating Biden among voters who never attend church, 36 to 24 percent.

Theres no rule that presidents have to be believers, or Thomas Jefferson never would have occupied the office. But presidential religiosity has advantages. Bill Clinton used it to signal to otherwise politically hostile parts of the county that he understood their values. It fortified George W. Bush under incredible pressure during the War on Terror. Barack Obama tapped the rhetorical power of church oratory.

The Sanders phenomenon is another indication of the weakening of American exceptionalism. When the social scientist Seymour Martin Lipset wrote about it decades ago, he underlined American religiosity and resistance to socialism. If he captures the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders will test how much either still matters or applies.

2020 by King Features Syndicate

See original here:
Bernie Sanders Is the Candidate of Nonbelievers - National Review

Once upon a time, Bernie Sanders would have had another political vulnerability besides his socialism - namely, his atheism.

In 2016, a Democratic National Committee staffer had to apologize after the WikiLeaks hack exposed an email he wrote that suggested using Bernie's atheism against him in the primary.

This year, Bernie's religion, or lack of it, has barely made a ripple or even occasioned any comment. It used to be expected that serious presidential candidates would have religious faith and discuss it, in keeping with the religious coloration of the country they sought to govern. Just as the taboo against openly socialist candidates has given way, so has the old norm about religiosity eroded nearly to the vanishing point.

Sanders, a secular Jew, doesn't call himself an atheist. The way he puts it is that he's "not actively involved with organized religion," and that he believes in God, just not in a traditional matter. "To me," he has said of his religion, "it means that all of us are connected, all of life is connected, and that we are all tied together."

Asked by Jimmy Kimmel whether he believes in God, he said, "I am what I am. And what I believe in, and what my spirituality is about, is that we're all in this together."

Functionally, this means his religion is indistinguishable from the vision of solidarity undergirding his socialist politics.

Indeed, the connection to Israel that Sanders touts to prove that he is not anti-Israel had much more to do with a political commitment rather than a religious one.

He lived for a time on a kibbutz in 1963 as a guest of a secular, socialist youth movement. According to The New York Times, the kibbutz "saw the Soviet Union as a model, and often flew the red flag at outdoor events." Sanders told a publication called Jewish Currents that "it was there that I saw and experienced for myself many of the progressive values upon which Israel was founded."

His brother said of Bernie in a 2016 Washington Post interview that "he is quite substantially not religious."

This makes Sanders an outlier in American life, but less of one than he used to be. According to the Pew Research Center, 26% of Americans say that they are atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular," up from 17% in 2009. The growth of the religiously unaffiliated can be seen across all demographic groups and regions, but is especially pronounced among young people who are, of course, disproportionately Bernie supporters. Only 35% of millennials attend religious services weekly or once or twice a month, while 64% attend a few times a year, seldom or never.

The nonreligious are Bernie's base. A Pew survey in January found that Joe Biden's most supportive religious group was black Protestants at 44%, followed by white Catholics and white evangelicals at 37% each. Bernie's best groups were agnostics (36%), atheists (30%) and the unaffiliated (28%).

In New Hampshire, Sanders lost to Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg among voters who attend religious services once a week or more and won among voters who never attend. A rare bright spot for Bernie in South Carolina was beating Biden among voters who never attend church, 36% to 24%.

There's no rule that presidents have to be believers, or Thomas Jefferson never would have occupied the office. But presidential religiosity has advantages. Bill Clinton used it to signal to otherwise politically hostile parts of the county that he understood their values. It fortified George W. Bush under incredible pressure during the war on terror. Barack Obama tapped the rhetorical power of church oratory.

The Sanders phenomenon is another indication of the weakening of American exceptionalism. When the social scientist Seymour Martin Lipset wrote about it decades ago, he underlined American religiosity and resistance to socialism. If he captures the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders will test how much either still matters or applies.

Rich Lowry is on Twitter @RichLowry

Here is the original post:
The candidate of the nonbelievers | Local News - timessentinel.com

There is a frightening word to which many people in the Church have closed their minds, which is gaining support at a rapid rate of knots and threatens to leave practising Catholics behind in its wake. That word is "humanist".

With that word, humanist, many people now describe not just themselves, but also the things they respect. Often Catholics do not approve of the word. Disapproving, they ignore the change; ignoring it, they drop out of the culture.

Last year the number of humanist funerals soared in Scotland and humanist weddings did so in England and Wales. English couples rushed to use Scotlands more post-Christian arrangements. This Christmas, humanist pastors started work in Northern Ireland.

Christians usually see these trends as events impinging on Christianity, when in fact they are occurring without it and have positive content themselves. Perhaps the feeling of being on the back foot in these culture wars has again made it congenial to Catholics to think institutionally and defensively. But thats no good.

A missionary Church cannot fall behind the things which its audience cares about, especially if it does not want to fall in with them. Yet how many Catholics inquire to see what makes humanism so attractive a term or to wonder if anything in that attraction is Christian?

What is happening is that humanist has become the main way to describe and defend that which is spiritual.

In the Observer, Mark Kermode praised 1917 and The Shawshank Redemption as humanist films because they speak about hope. The website Spiked! defends humanism, and by that means that Spiked! champions agency, the new term for free will and emancipation, and free speech, the sphere of conscience.

The album Humanist has just been released by a songwriter who says he is not religious but does "recognise the need for deities. Humanism is often associated with real feelings rather than formality: its what likeable in Hockney; its how Vox praises the new film Emma.

Not speaking this lingo means tacitly neglecting any defence of conscience, free will, and spirituality, made in terms that todays society can accept: the very concepts at the heart of Gaudium et spes. The very things in papers and websites which Christians should be latching onto as seeds of the Gospel are not being shared or said by them at all. Around us is a renewed culture, and Christians need to appropriate it.

In his book True Humanism (1936), Jacques Maritain argued that philosophers taking the human being as their starting point did not need to reduce reality to the human, or reduce what is human to the simply material.

Maritains thought was that when Christine de Pizan and Pico della Mirandola were flourishing, humanism was Christian humanism, but that by 1936, humanism became short for secular humanism.

If the Church engages at all, it opposes secular humanism with its Christian humanism as though 1936 were the present day. But often, in 2020, humanists recognise the need for the spiritual. The way people use humanism as a term of approval shows that New Atheism (Dawkins neo-Darwinism and so forth) is not now the problem.

Humanism now is not anti-Christian in tone. This is actually worse for the Church. The urgent problem is the currency of strong alternative language for good that the Church cannot hear and will not speak.

Nietzsche is somewhere in this story, too, Maritain was right about that; with the Nietzschean idea that Christianity encourages weakness. Every human sin confirms that bias. Marxism features too, because the Soviet version of the texts was published for a generation before Marx-before-Engels (what Maritain calls the young Marx) was rediscovered. Before long it looked like two forms of un-freedom: religion and politics, church and state.

When students grow up, it is more the questions that have been closed down for them that come to define their choices, than the skills which they are meant to have acquired. There is great danger now that atheists are defending agency, free expression and the human spirit, while the Church comes to be associated with cruelty, cover-up and grief.

Look no further than Philip Pullmans celebrity to see that the tables have been turned. Atheists who reject an idea of God that was never worthy of acceptance will defend humanity, they will be the humanists; and Catholics will fail to put across their trust in the God-made-man.

The century now underway is not unlike the fourth century in this respect. Then as well there was a more sympathetic hearing for Christians who presented Christ as divine but human than for Christians who emphasised divinity at the expense of humanity. The successful proselytisers were the Arians.

The fallacies promulgated in schools should be lanced. Before modern science, no one was trying (and failing) to do science. Before natural science existed, people engaged with the same real world, just in different terms. Their sacramental idea of nature, with God as the first, final and primary cause, can co-exist with our success in mastering secondary causes.

What is more important? When you meet someone whom Karl Rahner considers an anonymous Christian, who considers himself not religious; what matters first? To win an argument which to him is theoretical? To speak in your own institutions language? Or to relate to him in what Escriva calls the one same language of the heart? If you thought the natural virtues can be built on by the theological ones, why would you start with theology, bowdlerising theology in the process?

Why would the Church start with that bureaucratic aridity the Pope has rejected when we could achieve dialogue with the mercy Francis commends?

At a time when public discourse is being cut up into echo chambers and silos, when people seek actively to confirm their bias, the Church is another silo: one which does not communicate what it means and seems to say the opposite. So we need to start with the word that means something to others.

The integral humanism Maritain advocated means seeing the transcendent and the individual together, but it is with individuals that all individuals must begin. Catholics and the Catholic clergy should stand up for humanism, and use exactly that word.

Only by using an intelligible language can the Church gain a hearing for its claim to have a longer and deeper view. The Church has "baptised" natural theology before. Christ is the true human being. Humanism is the beginning of a faith that works.

Andrew Macdonald Powney works in publishing but used to teach RS in schools.

Go here to see the original:
Have atheists become defenders of the good? - The Tablet

Worried about COVID-19? Have no fear! A multi-denominational coalition of Christians is uniting today March 3rd, at 7:14 p.m. CST precisely for a global day of prayer to end the virus and you know it has to work, because God called for it.

The vessel through which he has spoken to the Christian community is Cindy Jacobs, co-founder of Generals International. Jacobs says God has spoken to her, telling her in true Old Testament fashion to organize the event. She says the Holy Spirit verbally granted her the authority to decree, albeit only in the event of a global convergence.

Jacobs has quite the track record with the Holy Spirit: They go way back. In her career as a faith healer, shes been able to turn metal into bone, make a grown woman grow taller, control the weather, and even magically inflate her ministrys bank account.

She also thinks that God wants Christians to be rich so the Jews will convert out of jealousy, and that He killed a bunch of blackbirds to condemn the repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell. She and her husband also co-signed an open letter slamming Christianity Todays anti-Trump op-ed, in case youre wondering where her politics lie.

We along with other global leaders are calling for a national day of prayer to end the Coronavirus. After seeking wisdom and prophetic counsel from prophets across the nation and world, we believe strongly that since this is a worldwide issue, its going to take the whole church to cry out together for the mercy and healing power of God to contain it.

Jacobs goes on to discuss the importance of a nation aligned with Gods will, invoking Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War to make some sort of flag-waving point about national unity, despite the event being billed as a global day of prayer.

At least shes willing to add that the promise remains the same for each nation enduring the coronavirus. God will heal all of us but only if we ask nicely enough.

Which begs the question: If God knows that we want the coronavirus gone, why does He need all the pageantry of a day of prayer where the whole world begs Him to take it away? Couldnt He just get rid of it?

Is God basically a bank robber, killing hostages until we pay him in the currency of prayers and appeasement?

And to think: Christians call atheism a belief system without hope.

See more here:
Cindy Jacobs: God Told Me to Hold a Global Day of Prayer Against Coronavirus - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

The essay begins by focusing on worrying, an all too common problem and gateway emotion to atheism:

"Every time we take a thought break and begin to wonder about how we will pay the stove oil bill, or the light bill, or what we are going to do if we get laid off from work in six months, we are worrying. We are actually telling the Lord, 'Jesus, you know all that stuff you said in Matthew chapter six about how you will take care of us? I don't believe it. I don't believe that you can do what you promised, so I am taking matters into my own hands; I'm going to worry about it until the situation is taken care of.'"

As it turns out, God plans his days around your dilemmas and will get to them in due course. So, if you are bothered about not being sure where your rent is coming form this month, you're doubting the Lord. Concerned about things like climate change? You're practically an iconoclast. Anxious at the thought that you aren't a good enough Christian? According to this, that exact worry is a sign that you aren't!

Are you feeling even more worried now? Oh, that isn't a good sign at all. You ought to be worried about that.

According to Lindley:

"I have only sworn two times since receiving the Holy Ghost. The Lord has the power to change our attitudes and habits. I wish I could say that I never get angry anymore either, but that is not the case. Just like you, I struggle with atheistic tendencies.

"Every time something doesn't go the way we want it to and we get angry, we are telling the world, 'I am losing my temper, because this problem is so messed up that not even God can sort it out.' When we slam doors, swear, yell, break dishes, speed, or shake our fist at somebody we are in the grip of an atheism attack.

"You see the Bible very clearly states that there is nothing too hard for God to fix. 'And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose.' (Romans 8:28 NKJV) This is why a person who has been born again can hit their thumb with a hammer and not swear. This is why the sincere Christian can look at a flat tire and say, 'I guess God needs to slow me down, because he has someone he needs me to cross paths with today.' Swearing and getting angry only says, 'There is absolutely no way that God can turn this flat tire into a blessing!'"

Well, shit. It seems that being angry with things, including things that might seem to be perfectly reasonable things to be mad at, is admitting that you think God is useless.

How exactly this reconciles with Jesus getting pissed off at the moneylenders in the temple and healers that refused to save lives on Sunday is unclear. Neither of these incidents seem to be the things that happen to somebody without bursts of anger, though I do suppose it is possible Christ had fits of atheism multiple times in his life.

Sometimes I don't believe in myself either.

Lindley points out the final, most advanced symptom of atheism last: Not sending God money. He writes:

"Some people are so greedy that they actually rob God. 'In what way have we robbed God? In tithes and offerings.' (Malachi 3:8 NKJV)) To those who would hold back the tithe the Lord has a challenge: 'Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now in this' says the Lord of hosts, 'If I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it.' (3:10 NKJV)"

While the God of Abraham is well known not to need money on account of his transcendental nature, it seems that he is still owed ten percent of everybody's earnings. This is not paid to him, of course, but to his helpers. In exchange for this, God will make good things happen. If you don't send money in addition to swearing or occasionally being grouchy, the minister assures us that "you are at extreme risk for very serious complications from your atheism."

While this may look remarkably similar to a concept used by the mafia, the protection racket, it is an utterly different operation. In the case of the mob, the threat of punishment is used as a way to force people into paying part of their earnings to a larger organization. In return, they are promised the protection of that organization from vague threats, often including that organization.

In this holy case, vague are threats used to show people the wisdom of paying part of their earnings to the church. In exchange for their payments, they are offered kickbacks from God and protection from vague threats made by the people telling them they need to send in money.

Luckily, Lindley suggests a solution for all three problems, especially the last one: Don't be an atheist! In particular, start praying and sending God money. This will resolve the third symptom automatically and the first two eventually.

It's an offer you can't refuse.

While it is fun to mock the often-ludicrous positions of those who misunderstand atheism, that very misunderstanding is an all too common and all too real issue for the millions of Americans who are not religious. Atheists in the United States face discrimination, are not trusted, and are barred from running for office in several states.

In my experience, many of these tend to come from a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is. I, at various times, have been accused of being a Satanist, a pagan, or an amoralist, among other things. It is little wonder why a person who doesn't understand what atheism is would find a variety of issues arising from it.

The minister in this case makes a similar mistake: He begins by thinking that atheism is something other than the proposition that there are no gods and then works forward. In this case, he seems to presume it is some kind of psychological condition which manifests as a hybrid of anxiety, Tourette's syndrome, and kleptomania. His use of the word "symptoms" is revealing.

While it is true that atheism can be anxiety-inducing, this falls more under the category of "existential dread" than psychosis. John-Paul Sartre, the atheistic philosopher who made Existentialism popular, wrote on this extensively. In his essay "Existentialism is a Humanism," he explains:

"What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the worldand defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist see him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of himself what do we mean by anguish? The existentialist frankly states that man is in anguish. His meaning is as follows: When a man commits himself to anything, fully realizing that he is not only choosing what he will be, but is thereby at the same time a legislator deciding for the whole of mankindin such a moment a man cannot escape from the sense of complete and profound responsibility."

If choosing what you are and what meaning your life will have doesn't give you anxiety, Sartre would suggest you're doing something wrong.

However, this anxiety isn't necessarily cured by belief. Soren Kierkegaard, the founder of Existentialism, wrote extensively on the topics of angst, dread, anxiety, and regretting all of your life choices while being a thoroughly devoted Christian. While he argues that the leap of faith can help, he also argues that we are still fundamentally alone and responsible for our choices when it comes to making that anxiety-inducing leap.

The minister's point about swearing as a result of lacking faith is bizarre enough to be left alone. Ten minutes in any bar in the middle section of the country on a Friday night should be enough to convince anybody that any sincere believer can swear while remaining a believer.

Furthermore, the minister presumes that a believer is going to be of the kind that thinks God is very engaged in human life. While he may suppose God was involved in his tire going flat, many other approaches to the divine reject that idea. Deists, who tend to think that there is a God who created the cosmos but leaves it alone, would be an example.

All in all, the essay described above is an unintentionally hilarious look at what some people think being an atheist is like. It is hardly the first, and it won't be the last. Anxiety about atheism has a history going back to ancient Greecestudies demonstrate the continued existence of Christian anxiety about atheistsand this essay is another example of people being unduly concerned about it.

I'd accuse the minister of worrying too much about atheism, but then he'd be one of us.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

More here:
3 "symptoms" of atheism, as described by a Christian minister - Big Think

AnaRose Hart-ThomasStaff Writer

Each week, the Mavericks Atheist/Agnostic Secular Students gather in the basement of Armstrong Hall to discuss topics of interest presented by its club members.

Dalton Campbell, a third-year finance major, explained a typical meeting as, We have a rotation of officers who make their own PowerPoints about a particular subject. Last week we did one on where morality comes from.

Meetings are conducted in an open forum fashion where members can openly discuss their minds. The club participates in Ask an Atheist Day as well that happens twice a year. On those days, anyone can ask questions about atheism to atheists.

John Arsenault, a senior studying history, said, For me, it is a place of free thought. It is not so much about one thing like atheism, but a place to openly discuss religion and theology.

Frank Vondura, a sophomore transfer student studying music industry and theater design, added, It is a group of people to see each week that are different from the norm who have interesting mindsets and views on things.

MASS has existed in some way on campus for roughly 10 years, but was revamped two years ago to be the group it is today. When I came here, I was looking for an atheist club but there was nothing. There were 20-plus religious organizations, so the goal was to have something for secular people, so they didnt have to feel ostracized, Raghen Lucy, the club president, said.

Michael Diercks, an MNSU alumni, said, The one thing I always liked about this club is the sense of community. Sometimes it feels like Im he only non-religious person but then I come here and there is a whole group of like-minded individuals.

Campbell defined atheist and agnostic as, Atheist to me, deals with the lack of the belief in God, whereas agnostic deals with the knowledge of something meaning you dont know something for a fact.

Information on how to join can be found on posters throughout the campus. Weekly meetings are held Thursdays at 7 p.m. in Armstrong Hall 39.

We are open to anyone of any religious faith as long as you bring an open mind, Arsenault said.

Header photo: Students exchange their views on the extinction of dinosaurs at the Mavericks Atheist/Agnostic Secular Students Features meeting in Armstrong Hall Thursday, Feb. 20, 2020 in Mankato, Minn. (Mai Tran/MSU Reporter)

Like Loading...

Continue reading here:
MNSU's atheist club believes in the right to not believe - MSU Reporter